Hill v. Estate of Westbrook

SCHAUER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant administrator in an action on a rejected claim against an estate. Plaintiff and decedent, who were not formally married, lived together as man and wife from 1930 until decedent’s death in 1946. Two children were born to them. The creditor’s claim was for the lump sum of $10,000 “For services rendered decedent from about August 15, 1930, to date of death [July 31, 1946], . . . consisting of keeping house for him . . . , living with him as man and wife . . . , bearing decedent two children, . . . performing the usual duties of a housewife . . . , and earning a salary from time to time during said period, all of which was turned over to said decedent.” Judgment for defendant administrator rests upon findings, supported by the evidence, that any contribution of services or moneys by plaintiff for the benefit of decedent was gratuitous and in contemplation of their reciprocal relationship. We have concluded that under the law governing appellate review (see

Estate of Bristol

(1943), 23 Cal.2d 221, 223 [143 P.2d 689];

Richter

v.

Walker

(1951), 36 Cal.2d 634, 640 [226 P.2d 593]) such judgment must be affirmed.

On the first trial of this action plaintiff had judgment for $3,000. The judgment was reversed because it allowed recovery, in a lump sum, not only for services for which plaintiff might have recovered but also for living with decedent and bearing the children.

(Hill

v.

Estate of

Westbrook (1950), 95 Cal.App.2d 599, 602, 603 [213 P.2d 727].) On the first appeal the District Court of Appeal cor

[460]

rectly said, “When a man and woman knowingly live together in a meretricious relationship—in the absence of an express agreement, oral or written, that she be compensated for services performed—there is no implied obligation on the part of the man to compensate the woman for household services rendered by her. . . . Although the parties live together in illicit relationship during the time the services are performed, an express contract to compensate for services performed as a housekeeper has been held valid and enforceable unless made in contemplation of such illicit relationship. . . . Whether the contract was dependent upon the illicit relationship is a question of fact.”